elpatricio Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 Documents have been found indicating that Iraq is planning to use chemical weaponry against coalition forces... read more... BBC News Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 Yeh I saw that earlier today, scary stuff. Our boys will be getting injected with all sorts of crap right now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyro_Monty Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 Is that a good idea? Are they sure what caused the original Gulf War Syndrome? I believe that one suggested cause was all the vaccinations that the troops got before deployment. If they never confirmed or denied this theory... I would be apprehensive about allowing any of it into my bloodstream Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyovan4 Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 another suggestion ive heard was that it is actually post traumatic stress disorder.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tollen Posted January 25, 2003 Share Posted January 25, 2003 (edited) And worst of all that s-t is said to make people sterile I don´t know what´s in the shots you yanks and tommy´s get, but I´ve read that those have a nasty tendency of making the body parts where it´s injected swollen and in some times, the G.I.´s even get sick (vomiting and such). In the swedish army (yes the one that officially haven´t been in war for 150 years). We just get some pills for "daily snack" and some syringes of Antropin in case we get exposed. Edited January 25, 2003 by Tollen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry American Posted January 25, 2003 Share Posted January 25, 2003 I would not be surprised if the Gulf war syndrome was caused by use of chemical weapons. My boss was telling about a gu he nows that had it. Turns out one of the main effects is testicular cancer. Ok, I know many will not agree with this, but let's have your opinions. If Iraq attacks our troops with chemical and/or biological weapons I believe we should come back at him with our nukes. If we let Saddam use WMDs against us and do not give hime one better, then we will open the door for further attacks of that kind. One good nuke in the 1940s kepts us free from attack for about 60 years. I do not want it to come to that, but if we have to do it, so be it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tollen Posted January 25, 2003 Share Posted January 25, 2003 I would not be surprised if the Gulf war syndrome was caused by use of chemical weapons. My boss was telling about a gu he nows that had it. Turns out one of the main effects is testicular cancer. Ok, I know many will not agree with this, but let's have your opinions. If Iraq attacks our troops with chemical and/or biological weapons I believe we should come back at him with our nukes. If we let Saddam use WMDs against us and do not give hime one better, then we will open the door for further attacks of that kind. One good nuke in the 1940s kepts us free from attack for about 60 years. I do not want it to come to that, but if we have to do it, so be it. I think that they should stick to the plan from the first Gulf War, if Saddam uses his WMD´s, then bomb the dam´s at Tigris. Even if people have a tendency of dying any way, then the US get some moral goodwill for not nuking them, but just finding creative ways of utilizing convetnional weapons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyro_Monty Posted January 25, 2003 Share Posted January 25, 2003 I would not be surprised if the Gulf war syndrome was caused by use of chemical weapons. My boss was telling about a gu he nows that had it. Turns out one of the main effects is testicular cancer. Ok, I know many will not agree with this, but let's have your opinions. If Iraq attacks our troops with chemical and/or biological weapons I believe we should come back at him with our nukes. If we let Saddam use WMDs against us and do not give hime one better, then we will open the door for further attacks of that kind. One good nuke in the 1940s kepts us free from attack for about 60 years. I do not want it to come to that, but if we have to do it, so be it. Angry American, under no circumstances should nuclear weapons ever be used in this conflict, as far as I'm concerned. We learned the complete over-devastation caused by them at the end of the Pacific campaign in WWII and surely we should see that they are completely unjustifiable today. Can you please explain the tactical advantage of using nuclear weapons in such a small-scale conflict? Maybe it's just me but... I can't see how it would help you in your aims. In case you have forgotten, your fine President has stated on numerous occasions that the war is intended to "liberate" the Iraqi people. How does nuking a country because of a small dictating faction help these people? How does nuking the country allow you to collect the oil in the region? Answer me these questions else I will assume that your ideals are simply outdated and obsolete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry American Posted January 26, 2003 Share Posted January 26, 2003 Can you please explain the tactical advantage of using nuclear weapons in such a small-scale conflict? Simple, and this may be outdated, but I do not care. If a country, any country, wil use a WMD, be it chemical, biological, or nuclear, againts the US or any of it's allies, then the only logical course is to return in kind, or bigger. What good is a nuclear deterent if no one believes you will use it? I do not believe any country should take a chemical/biological attack and not return full force. I do not want that to happen, and I do not like the idea of killing innocent Iraqi citizens. But if we do not respond to a WMD with a WMD we look weak and open ourselves to further attacks from WMDs. No one would fear N. Korea if having nukes if we knew they were scared to pull the trigger. In case you have forgotten, your fine President has stated on numerous occasions that the war is intended to "liberate" the Iraqi people. How does nuking a country because of a small dictating faction help these people? My first concern is the American citizens and our troops engaged in foreign conflicts, not the Iraqi people. If we can liberate them, more the better. My main point is this: Any one leading a nation has a duty to do what ever it takes to protect his/her citizens. If it takes nuking someone in a small conflict to assure a nation's protection then do it. Assume what you will about me or my ideals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalker_Zero Posted January 26, 2003 Share Posted January 26, 2003 (edited) How come I haven't heard anybody talk about neutron weapons?? Since Neutron weapons kill only people and don't devastate the environment why not use them instead as a last resort? I don't necessarily mean in Iraq which I don't think any nukes of any type will be used anyway. But I mean in general as a viable weapon. If not strategic I think they might be good in a tactical variation. People were scared of neutron nukes back in the seventies because for the first time it made nuclear war...."viable". And because of that they were outlawed. But tactical neutron weapons might doable as an anti-personnel weapon without the devastation of regular fission/fusion bombs. Edited January 26, 2003 by Stalker_Zero Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebb Posted January 26, 2003 Share Posted January 26, 2003 In my opinion the first time we get any incidence of a terrorist "dirty" bomb being detonated in a western city, thats when we should begin returning in kind, if any terrorist organisation is prepared to use those sorts of tactics then they deserve everything we have..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tollen Posted January 26, 2003 Share Posted January 26, 2003 (edited) In my opinion the first time we get any incidence of a terrorist "dirty" bomb being detonated in a western city, thats when we should begin returning in kind, if any terrorist organisation is prepared to use those sorts of tactics then they deserve everything we have..... And what would be the target? Don´t you imagine that the terrorists that plan and execute such an operation will digg deep into a hellhole worse than Afghanistan, or maybe some urban area. Do you see the problem with targeting those SOB´s? And probably they will to, so, a nuke on me, a nuke on you, wont work. It have worked great in the big plan of MAD (Mutually Asured Destruction) ´cause the russian Bear had "X" much territory to hide in, and that all of it could be targeted. Nope. I hope that the US government never ever decides to accept the collateral damage associated to WMD usage. Edited January 26, 2003 by Tollen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebb Posted January 26, 2003 Share Posted January 26, 2003 I dont expect the US, or whichever country the terrorists decide to target, to try to locate the actual people who carried out the act, but it would give them a legitimacy they dont currently have to use those sorts of weapons to retaliate, and i expect they will.. I agree with you Tollen when you say it is a difficult scenario to deal with, but i think that governments would use these kind of attacks to get public support for just this kind of retaliation.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry American Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 In my opinion the first time we get any incidence of a terrorist "dirty" bomb being detonated in a western city, thats when we should begin returning in kind, if any terrorist organisation is prepared to use those sorts of tactics then they deserve everything we have Makes sense to me. However, it is much easier to use a WMD in retaliation against a standing government than a terrorist faction, unless that faction was supported by a national government, such as the taliban and al qeada. Ok, new spin on my question: If nukes are not the proper course of action in the event of Iraq gassing our troops, then what is? Or, better yet, what if Iraq has nukes and uses one on our troops in Iraq? Then how should we react? Answer me these questions else I will assume that your ideals are simply outdated and obsolete. monty, the more I think about that remark the more it burns me up. Was it intended as an insult, or am I just being hypersensitive? Insult is how I took it. I just posted a question and, right or wrong, my answer to that question. All I wanted was the input from others, not an attack on my ideals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyro_Monty Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 Well to be honest AA... it was just a statement of my opinion. However, I have to say that I stand by it and I am finding your gung-ho "logic" (or lack thereof) to be fairly insulting too. I know I shouldn't but... maybe I'm being hypersensitive... I am also certain that your hypothesising on this issue is irrelevant as I believe your scenarios are outwith the realms of possibility. By imagining these things you are only going to start coming to conclusions about events which are yet to occur, leading to paranoia and ungrounded opinions. Trust me, I see it done on a personal level every day. On the subject, if Iraq was to use any form of chemical weapon, I admit that it would put everyone into a difficult situation. But what benefit could these barbaric knee-jerk responses have on the final outcome? Very little as far as I can see. How do you intend to reintegrate Iraq into the global community when half the country is a wasteland and 80% of the population is homeless, suffering from severe radiation illness or sterile? Who does that help? How does punishing the uninvolved civilians aid the US and her allies? Well I guess you get that good feeling of putting some foot to ######, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluntobject Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 Just wanted to state my opinion. I'm with Monty in that I do not think nukes are even a concievably viable resource here. We're after Saddam, his regime, and his illegal weapons. If the United States were to use nukes against Iraq under ANY circumstances, we would do maybe 20% damage to Saddam/Regime, and the other 80% would be to the environment and innocent people. Besides, can you think of the outrage it would cause in the rest of the world? Now I'm not a pacifist at all, and I do think that Saddam/Regime are evil, but nukes are not the answer here. I do think that he needs to be removed from power and that some people in the world have a strange misconception of him, thinking that if we ask nicely one more time he'll shape up. It is a matter of national interest to the U.S. though, cause if Saddam does have/get WMD's, he would no doubt supply them to a terrorist organization in a heart beat. I do wonder what he'd do if he see's that he's out of options and his regime is being taken out by force. (back to using chemical weapons on Coalition forces on Iraqi soil.) Just my humble opinion (sorry it's a bit long winded.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluntobject Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 Also... I just find it funny to scroll down this topic and see how the posts start out as one liners and get longer and longer... Apparently you're not seeing the humor... Nevermind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebb Posted January 27, 2003 Share Posted January 27, 2003 I can appreciate your opinion blunt', but i'm afraid that i cant see any humour in this topic. The main dilemma seems to be what would be our retaliation to an attack by people prepared to use WMD, i honestly dont know what the answer is, but if we do not have the stomach to accept that we may have to use weapons that were previously considered unacceptable, then what deterrent can we use against an enemy who is prepared to use such weapons ? I agree Monty that this sort of scenario is purely hypthetical, but i fear as time goes on it will become less and less so.. jmo.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warhawk Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 Here is my two cents on the subject of a hypothectial first use of a WMD by the current Iraqi regime. No one really, in their right mind, wants to use nukes. Certainately none in the military. It is a well known fact that there are no winners only losers when nukes are used. I can not even begin to think of a good way in which they could be used in a conflict with Iraq. However, it won't just be US forces involved if Iraq is invaded. So there is another dynamic to consider. What of the UK policy on the subject? Additionally, if the US and UK and whoever else decides to side with those two go ahead and attack Iraq without UN approval and Iraq uses chemical weapons then that will prove that the invasion was warrented in the first place. Stout Hearts Warhawk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluntobject Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 I apologize. I was not meaning to make fun of this topic. I do realize that it is a very very serious thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyro_Monty Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 LMAO, thanks Picc, that's an interesting one... I'll have to use that in future debates Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_1G_HiLandR Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Very intersting topic. Very intersting responses. Kudos brothers! I fear a long-term commitment. Not to redirect the flow of this but what do you think? My oldest son is now 16 Signed worried Daddy HiLandR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warhawk Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Very intersting topic. Very intersting responses. Kudos brothers! I fear a long-term commitment. Not to redirect the flow of this but what do you think? My oldest son is now 16 Signed worried Daddy HiLandR In terms of a long-term commitment with Iraq I don't think you will have to worry there. (The reason I say I don't think is because I don't have that infamous crystal ball) I believe that not only will Iraq's military fold under any US/UK led invasion but also so will the current Iraqi government. As far as for the grander "war on terrorism", well again the only worry there is if your son decides that the thing for him to do is to defend not only the principles of the United States but the general principle of freedom, by serving in a branch of the US military. For me, having decided when I was only 17 to enlist in the US Navy, there was no more a noble cause than that. In case you care or are wondering I served from 1985-1988 under perhaps one of the, this of course is my own personal view, greatest presidents of all time. Believe me though everytime my ship sailed in the back of my mind I couldn't help but wonder if there was a soviet sub out there. While I worry for all the men and women in the armed forces I am also proud of what they do. And I know that each night I can sleep at least a better knowing that I am free of tyranny. Stout Hearts Warhawk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piccolo Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Damn right, Warhawk. People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf - George Orwell I'll have to agree with that Warhawk said on Iraq, HilandR. However, I think there is cause for concern on the North Korea front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firefly2442 Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Some people consider nuclear weapons to bring peace and stability. At least in the Cold War era. If two sides know that if they go to war they will be destroyed, why do it? If there were no nuclear weapons, then conventional fighting could occur (at least more frequently) and more lives would be lost. This is IMO however. With terrorism, you have a group or even a person who can get a WMD and use it with complete control anywhere in the world. It's easier to fix something before it happens then to repair it after it's broke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.